Political Correctness around the world and its stifling of liberty and sense. Chronicling a slowly developing dictatorship Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

Sunday, May 10, 2015

A multicultural sex-pest in Britain

A private in the British Army was today sentenced to 90 days in detention after drunkenly grabbing a female round the neck and asking her for ‘a cuddle’.

Private Taaziva Mutekedza, 37, sexually assaulted the woman after waking her up by knocking on her door to tell her he ‘really liked her’.

He then placed his hands on the back of her neck and pulled her head towards him but she told him to ‘go away’.

The incident happened in the early hours of one morning in January 2014, at the New Normandy Barracks in Aldershot, Hampshire.

Mutekedza was convicted after a trial of one count of sexual assault by a board of five serviceman at Bulford Military Court Centre in Wiltshire.

Prosecutor Commander Caroline Kenyon said: “A woman heard a knock on her door and the defendant was outside and appeared drunk. “He said words to the effect ‘You know I really like you’. “He grabbed her hand and she tried to close the door but the defendant blocked her doorway and pulled his hand back when it was on the back of her head.

“He said "why are you not going to give me a cuddle?" He tried to pull her head towards him and she told him to go away. He left and again said "you know I really like you".”

He was cleared of another charge of sexual assault relating to an accusation he crept into bed with a different woman before attempting to touch her intimately as she slept.

Private Mutekedza, of 22 Field Hospital, based at New Normandy Barracks, will serve his detention order at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester, Essex.

Any feminist would tell this woman that men are no good and she should forget all about them

Belinda Stuckey has been on two dates every week for almost a year and a half without any resulting in a second date - but that hasn't discouraged the determined woman from continuing on her journey to find that special someone.

The stunning blonde is one of the most contacted members on the eHarmony dating website, attracting more than 4,700 matches since signing up in December 2013.

However, after going on more than 130 dates, the 35-year-old is still waiting for a mutual spark to fly before venturing into that elusive second date.

Despite the dating game becoming almost like a part-time job, the school teacher from Kellyville, in northwestern Sydney, will keep searching because there is no doubt in her mind that the ideal man is out there somewhere.

After more than three years of being single, Belinda decided to give online dating a go after her friends suggested it 18 months ago. 'I had come out of a four-year relationship and took the time to get to know myself and know what I do and don't want,' she said. 'I'm in a good place now and ready to start again.'

Belinda thinks the reason she has generated such an interest from so many men is because she is 100 per cent genuine on her dating profile.

'I don't see any point putting out there someone you are not - it's important to let people know who you are and what your ultimate goal is at the end,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

She receives as many as 10 matches a day and then sends five multiple choice questions to the men she likes the sound of and the guys can do the same.

Belinda said she has met up with about 20 per cent of the guys she was originally matched with. Although the dates haven't been disastrous, there is yet to be that reciprocal spark. 'Either they like me and I don't like them or vice versa,' she said.

So how does Belinda keep getting back on the dating horse? 'It's important to me - I really want to find a partner,' she said. 'You have got to have thick skin and take it with a grain of salt.'

However, this is not to say that she doesn't feel deflated if she is interested in her date but the feeling isn't mutual.

'If I don't hear from him again I wonder what I did to turn him off - "Did I do something wrong? Did I not show enough skin? What can I do better next time?".'

Belinda may have given up a significant part of her time going on first dates but she knows that second date will come eventually. 'I still have hope he'll be out there,' she said.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be the perfect feminist hero. In theory, she fits the role on multiple levels: She’s an escapee from an abusive patriarchy. She’s an African immigrant who made her own way in a Western country, the Netherlands. She’s a fierce advocate for women’s rights.

She’s a target for deadly violence by angry men who want to shut her up. She left her religion and became a scourge of its repressive practices.

Except for the blemish on her record: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a dissident from the wrong religion. Raised a Muslim in Somalia, subjected to genital mutilation and married off to a distant cousin, she is famously a critic of Islam.

She has excoriated it at extraordinary risk to her own safety, and makes the case again in her latest book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.”

When she collaborated on a film in the Netherlands in 2004 cataloging abuses against Muslim women, her fellow filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamist who left a note threatening her pinned to van Gogh’s chest — with a knife.

But Hirsi Ali wouldn’t be silenced. She is truly a hero of our time. She is defying the jihadi censors, the misbegotten hate-speech laws and the polite conventions of Western debate that all limit what can be said about the relationship of Islam to modernity.

Our society, and especially the left, tends to reflexively celebrate dissenters. But some heretics are more welcome than others.

In the case of Islam, the pieties of multiculturalism clash with what should be an imperative of feminism (i.e., forcefully standing up for the basic rights of women in Muslim societies), and feminism tends to lose out.

“The concern,” as one feminist wrote of Hirsi Ali, “is that her intervention into the issue of gender equality in Muslim societies will strengthen racism rather than weaken sexism.”

In the fashionable neologism designed to be a conversation-stopper, she is “an Islamophobe.” Brandeis University notoriously rescinded a planned honorary degree for her last year.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has more confidence in Western civilization and its values than people who have never had to live outside it, or face down the enemies who want to destroy it.

If Hirsi Ali had had a strict Baptist upbringing and left to tell the story of its hypocrisies and closed-mindedness, she would be celebrated in such precincts as Brandeis, without anyone uttering a peep of protest.

This is the “Book of Mormon” effect — no one cares about offending the inoffensive. It’s only debate over a religion that is home to dangerous fanatics that must be carefully policed.

Even people not otherwise known for their solicitude for religious sensibilities are uncomfortable with her criticisms of Islam.

In his interview with her this week, “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart worried that “people single out Islam,” when Christianity underwent its own difficult reconciliation with modernity.

True enough, but the horrific intra-Christian bloodletting of the Thirty Years’ War was 400 years ago.

If Islam is on the same trajectory, it is badly trailing the pace. Hirsi Ali’s prescriptions are hardly unassailable. Her notion of religious reform bears an atheistic stamp.

If change in Islam depends on getting Muslims to admit that Muhammad was not The Prophet, as she writes in “Heretic,” the cause is indeed hopeless. The ummah is not going to dissolve itself into a gooey Unitarian Universalism.

Hirsi Ali recalls the dissidents from communism in the 20th century like the great Whittaker Chambers. Their personal experience redoubled their commitment to the fight for freedom and human dignity.

They, too, were often dismissed as fanatics and as embarrassments to polite opinion. But their intellectual contributions, and the examples of their own bravery, were indispensable in the long ideological struggle.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not just a heretic; she also is a believer. She has more confidence in Western civilization and its values than people who have never had to live outside it, or face down the enemies who want to destroy it.

If she doesn’t get the recognition she deserves, so much the worse for her detractors.

Much like Rolling Stone, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) refuses to the let the facts — or lack thereof — get in the way of her preferred feminist narrative. In her case, it’s the claim that the military has it in for women. Instead of university administrators and fraternity members, she accuses Department of Defense officials of lies and cover-ups and implies that any female living near a base is at risk from sexual predators in uniform.

In the past, she’s used questionable survey results to generate support for legislation that would have stripped military commanders of their authority in sexual assault cases. Although the measure was universally opposed by DOD leaders and didn’t pass, she recently renewed her attack. Gillibrand was undeterred by the fact that the same category of responses she previously used to create the perception of a crisis showed an improvement of over 25% in the latest survey, or that victims have shown a greater willingness to report the incidents that do occur.

She deserves a little credit (very little…) for creativity. With the data working against her original line of “reasoning,” she was at least smart enough to chose a different — if even more flawed — metric to focus on this time around: sexual assaults on military spouses and civilian women who live near bases. She chooses a few isolated anecdotes to try and make the case that the military is incapable of treating women fairly. She also cites the Pentagon’s exclusion of these women in its surveys as evidence its hiding something. But as a Pentagon spokesman explained, “The department does not have standing authority to survey non-DOD civilian populations. However, federal surveys have found that the prevalence of sexual assault for non-DOD civilian women is statistically the same for military women and female spouses of military members.”

Translation: The Pentagon can’t do what Gillibrand wants it to, but it’s unnecessary anyway because there is already a pretty good idea what the numbers would say — and they don’t support Gillibrand’s argument.

Gillibrand bemoans that cases pursued in the military legal system are plagued by witnesses who decide to not cooperate, victims whose testimony is not considered credible, and inconsistent punishments. While those may (or may not) be valid observations, they aren’t unique to the military and could just as easily be used to describe similar cases tried in civilian courts.

One of her examples cites the case of a service member who allegedly assaulted a civilian female. The investigating officer identified too many inconsistencies in the victim’s story to pursue a sexual assault case, but ended up securing convictions on several lesser charges. Gillibrand puts officials like this in a no-win situation: She’ll bash them and question their integrity if they try to prosecute on the more serious charge and lose, and she’ll bash them and question their integrity if they get a conviction on charges that aren’t suitably severe for her.

Meanwhile, she ignores an interesting aspect of the report: No improvement was noted in the 20% of sexual assault incidents with male victims.

Sexual assault offenders should indeed be punished. That said, not everyone accused is actually guilty, though it appears the only way to make Gillibrand happy is for every male accused of any type of sexual assault to be convicted, regardless of what the evidence says.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here